This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The CA correctly held that the petitioner, being Tungal's employer, was presumed liable to the heirs of Christian after a finding that it was Tungal who should be faulted for the accident that caused the death of the child. In Cang v. Cullen,[6] the Court emphasized that when an employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that his employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family. In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience and service records. With respect to the supervision of employees, employers must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof. These facts must be shown by concrete proof, including documentary evidence.[7] | |||||
|
2014-11-11 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Negligence is the omission of that diligence required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds to the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place.[52] The Sanchezes could not be found negligent as they relied upon the assurances of Garcia after their oral agreement to sell was negotiated. The Sanchezes trusted Garcia and entrusted to him per their oral agreement the owner's original duplicate of TCT 156254 in order to facilitate the documentation required under the terms of agreement for the sale of the subject lot. It must be pointed out that the parties in this case were not dealing on equal terms. The Sanchezes had insufficient knowledge in the legalities of transacting with real estate. This is evidenced by the fact that they already considered an oral agreement for the sale of real property as sufficient. Had they been knowledgeable in such matters, they would have known that such oral agreement is unenforceable and instead sought the production of a written agreement. Moreover, the facts show that the Sanchezes did not simply surrender possession of the property to TSEI and Garcia, but that such possession was taken from them without their consent. | |||||
|
2014-03-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In our view, the RTC properly gave more weight to the testimonies of Zamora and SPO1 Corporal than to those of the witnesses for the Lanuzo heirs. There was justification for doing so, because the greater probability pertained to the former. Moreover, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of their testimonies is preferred to that of the appellate court's because of the trial court's unique first-hand opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor as such. The Court said in Cang v. Cullen:[24] | |||||